Fluoridation Evangelization – U.S. Public Health Service

NOT satisfied with trying to inflict compulsory mass medication of public water supplies on the American people starting around 1956, the U. S. Public Health Service sent staff members and U.S. tax dollar subsidies abroad to spread its pseudo orthodox fluoridation doctrine to the whole world.

The effort, of course, embraced enlistment of the World Health Organization  and of course that branch of the United Nations was a pushover. The effort did not stop there.

One cannot help wondering about the real motive behind this elaborate missionary venture. It hardly seems realistic that it should have been a drive by the PHS as an extension of mere pomp and power. Nor would one ex­pect to find that effort included among its ambitions for abstract leadership in one-world government.

To be sure, elevating fluoridation to universal status could vastly expand the market for sodium fluoride, its substitutes and for handling machinery with which to apply it and hold in partial check its corrosive unruliness. But the PHS surely could be relied on to deny that so base a motive could have actuated it.

Whatever the motive, the world program proved to be a dud except for the weasel like response of he WHO and its effectiveness bore little relation to its noisiness.

In his introduction to the Exner-Waldbott book, The American Fluoridation Experiment, 1961, James Rorty, its editor, suggested that the fluoridation program had made little head­way abroad. This remains true even today in the new millennium.

In 1955, the dentists of France, at their annual conven­tion, voted against it after the “Institut Pasteur” and the Ministry of Health had failed to approve it.

Switzerland was going slow as a result of experiments which indicated that fluorine might aggravate thyroid im­balance in persons suffering from goiter.

In the February 12, 1955, issue of the British Medical Journal, Dr. Hugh Sinclair, director of Oxford University’s Laboratory of Human Nutrition, had declared that “the Health Ministry’s plan to put chemicals called fluorides into drinking water may poison millions of people.

Among the reasons stated by the French dental society for its action was that fluoridation would be compulsory medica­tion of such nature as to be contrary to human rights and that no government should possess the power to order it.

France, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Russia and India re­fused to sanction fluoridation of public waters.

In Great Britain, Belgium, Switzerland, and New Zealand there had been “experiments” on a trial basis. All but Great Britain have rejected fluoridation completely.

The struggle over fluoridation became a battle royal in Sweden. A few years ago that nation’s Supreme Adminis­trative Court unanimously ruled that experimental fluorida­tion of public water supplies in Norrköping, a seaport at the head of a long inlet of Norrköping Bay, with 84,000 inhabit­ants, was unlawful and “must be stopped immediately.”

Within less than a year the Swedish parliament enacted a new law authorizing Swedish communities to fluoridate if they wished to. Next to none have done so and later abandoned fluoridation under public pressure.

Then the Swedish scientist, Dr. Hugo Theorell, winner of a 1955 Nobel Prize for his work in the field of enzymes, in a report to the Royal Medical Board of Sweden said, “Even if the experiments so far carried out with the fluoridation of water have scarcely given grounds for all too great fears of chronic water poisoning, one must, in connection with water fluoridation on a very great scale, reckon with unfavorable results in a certain number of individuals.” (Emphasis added.)

Dr. Theorell went on to say, “It strikes the undersigned as in principle wrong to open up possibilities for a majority decision in a body of laymen to be able to impose upon all individuals in a municipality the consumption of a water that is not 100 percent guaranteed harmless. It may be ob­jected that the advantages of a reduced caries frequency would nevertheless outweigh the disadvantages. This argu­ment implies that one should force some people to risk some­thing of their health to improve that of others …. ”

“Equally good or even better alternatives than water fluori­dation (A) exist in the form of either local application of fluorine preparations (B) or the administration of fluorine through other vehicles than water (C).”

Following Dr. Theorell’s report the Swedish government refused to permit general mass fluoridation!

The U. S. Public Health Service horned into this foreign dispute with a $44,000 grant of American taxpayer money to be spent by Professor Ingve Ericson, the most powerful fluoridation promoter in Sweden, according to announcement in May, 1962, by the government-controlled Swedish radio. Added to $60,975 similarly contributed in 1959, this brings to $104,975 the total, as of 1962, of Uncle Sam’s financial pressure to cause Swedes, in their own country, to submit to specific compulsory medication of their drinking and cooking water.

In declaring the old law invalid as of December, 1961, Sweden’s highest tribunal, which only parliament can over­ride by legislative enactment, declared that:
Adding of fluorides to the public water supplies is not done in order to purify the water, or to make it, in any other respect, more fit for drinking and cooking purposes.

The possibility cannot be excluded that fluoridation may involve certain risks to the health of consumers. The way in which water is supplied to the community makes it impossible for anyone to avoid using such water should he wish to do so.

The Norrköping experiment was the only public fluorida­tion project in Sweden. In 1955, after it had been in progress for three years, the Royal Swedish Health Board, which cor­responds to the Public Health Service in the U.S., issued a warning, officially reporting to the Swedish govern­ment that it did not find that the absolute safety of fluorida­tion had as yet been established. Its suggestion was ignored.

Three years later, in 1958, the Royal Health Board pro­posed that a law be passed to permit a local community to fluoridate if it so chose.

This proposed legislation fell by the wayside because of popular resistance.

Technically, in its 1961 decision, the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court ruled that Paragraph No. 3 of the sani­tary code must be applied. That paragraph provides that the Country Administration concerned “shall see to it that ap­propriate measures are taken for removal of such sanitary anomalies as have come to its knowledge.”

It must be borne in mind that the U. S. Public Health Service has not tried, by bare Federal fiat, to compel Ameri­can communities to fluoridate. But the PHS deserves little credit for not attempting that obviously impossible tactic.

Instead, it has propagandized local health officials and/or mayors and city or town councils to embrace its program and, to that end, has applied pressures high and low, behavior polite or boorish to suit the occasion, dialectic, ideology — ­in fact the whole gamut of dialectic, ideology and cajolery; throwing dignity out the window and barefacedly putting science to shame. And, through it all, its ADA and other understudies have diligently demanded that, under no circumstances, should municipal nabobs permit submission of the proposed policy directly to the voters by referendum. Their fear and loathing of the populace and their uprising has been demonstrated time after time.

In 1955, the PHS asserted that 1,095 American communi­ties, with estimated aggregate population of 28,000,000, were fluoridated. That figured down to an average population of 25,571 per fluoridated community.

But by that date organized opposition had developed and 500 cities and towns, comprising 40,000,000 people, had either initially rejected fluoridation or abandoned it after trial. These rebelling communities had an average population of 80,000 each. Population-wise they were more than three times the importance of the hamlets with a sprinkling of, mostly, lesser cities that “took fluoridation lying down.”

And a large majority of those rejections were by referen­dum, proving that Dentist Frank Bull at least knew his politi­cal onions when he told the fourth annual conference of his fellow state dental directors in 1951:
If you can – I say if you can because five times we have been unable to do it -keep fluoridation from going to a referendum.

From the original by Robert M. Buck, The Grim Truth bout Fluoridation, 1964.

If you have as little as $5 to spare to help our cause, please go to our web site http://ffo-olf.org/ and click on our donate button. If we get enough money, we’ll put a well composed, stimulating and hard hitting ad in the local papers to get more people involved. Our communications team is starting to come together really well.

About fluoridationfree101

I'm a webmaster, science researcher, mathematician and nutritionist who has beat the ravages of chemical sensitivities, especially the harm done to my health by fluoride substances.
This entry was posted in Chemistry, drinking water, Environment, Fluoridation, Fluoride, Health, water and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s